Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 388

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Breaking Bad News About Cancer: Patients’ Preferences for Communication

Parker, Patricia A., Baile, Walter F., de Moor, Carl, Lenzi, Renato, Kudelka, Andrzej P., Cohen, Lorenzo·2001·Journal of Clinical Oncology
DOI 10.1200/jco.2001.19.7.2049
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess patients’ preferences regarding the way in which physicians deliver news about their cancer diagnosis and management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A sample of 351 patients with a variety of cancers completed a measure assessing their preferences for how they would like to be told news about their cancer. Patients rated characteristics of the context and content of the conversation as well as physician characteristics. RESULTS: Factor analysis indicated that patients’ preferences for how they would like to be told news regarding their cancer can be grouped into the following three categories: (1) content (what and how much information is told); (2) facilitation (setting and context variables); and (3) support (emotional support during the interaction). Women (P = .02) and patients with higher education (P = .05) had significantly higher scores on the Content scale, women (P = .02) had higher scores on the Support scale, and younger patients (P = .001) and those with more education (P = .02) had higher scores on the Message Facilitation scale. Medical variables were not associated with patients’ ratings of the importance of the three subscales. CONCLUSION: Patients rated items addressing the message content as most important, though the supportive and facilitative dimensions were also rated highly. Understanding what is important to patients when told news about their cancer provides valuable information that may help refine how this challenging task is best performed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2001.19.7.2049

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

See all 388

Metadata

Authors
Parker, P. A., Baile, W. F., de Moor, C., Lenzi, R., Kudelka, A. P., & Cohen, L.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Published
2001-04-01
Volume
19
Issue
7
Pages
2049-2056
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
DOI
10.1200/jco.2001.19.7.2049
OpenAlex
W1932279117
Cited by
388
References
24
FWCI
27.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Breaking Bad News About Cancer: Patients’ Preferences for Communication. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2001.19.7.2049
The paper
Parker, P. A., Baile, W. F., de Moor, C., Lenzi, R., Kudelka, A. P., & Cohen, L. (2001). Breaking Bad News About Cancer: Patients’ Preferences for Communication. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.7.2049

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.